View full case

ASIAVEST LIMITED v. CA

FACTS:

Asiavest Limited filed a complaint against Antonio Heras to enforce a judgment rendered by the Hong Kong Court. The judgment ordered Heras to pay Asiavest various amounts, including US$1,810,265.40, interest, fixed costs, and attorney's fees. Before the court could resolve Heras' Motion to Dismiss, a fire destroyed the office of the court along with all its records. Asiavest filed a Motion for Reconstitution of Case Records, which was granted, and the Motion to Dismiss was denied. Heras then filed his Answer, and the case was set for pre-trial conference where the parties agreed on certain stipulations of facts. The issue before the court was whether the judgment of the Hong Kong Court is enforceable in the Philippines and whether there were grounds to repel the judgment. Asiavest presented documentary evidence to prove the existence and authenticity of the judgment, while Heras presented witnesses to challenge the service of summons and claim in Hong Kong and the lack of notice of the judgment.

The trial court ruled in favor of Asiavest, ordering Heras to pay the amounts stated in the Hong Kong judgment. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision and dismissed Asiavest's complaint without prejudice. The Court held that for a foreign judgment to be enforceable, the foreign tribunal should have acquired jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter. The Court agreed with the trial court that matters of remedy and procedure are governed by the law of the forum state, but emphasized that in an action in personam and where the defendant is in the Philippines, the summons should be personally served on the defendant in accordance with the Rules of Court. The Court found that the Hong Kong Court did not acquire jurisdiction over Heras because there was no attempt to serve summons in Hong Kong, where she was physically present. Despite this, the Court did not completely dismiss Asiavest's claim and stated that further actions can be taken to enforce the claims against Heras. The Court also agreed with Heras that evidence supporting the validity of the foreign judgment should be submitted.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether it was necessary for ASIAVEST to present evidence supporting the validity of the judgment

  2. Whether the service of summons on HERAS was defective under Philippine law

  3. Whether summons should have been personally served on HERAS in Hong Kong

  4. Whether the Hong Kong summons should have been served with leave of Philippine courts

  5. Whether the foreign judgment contravenes Philippine laws, the principles of sound morality, and the public policy of the Philippines.

  6. Whether the qualification of an expert witness on foreign law is necessary for the court to consider his testimony as proof of said law.

  7. Whether the testimony of an expert witness on foreign law is sufficient evidence to establish the existence of said law.

  8. Whether or not the defendant can be considered a resident of the Philippines.

  9. Whether or not the defendant should have been summoned in the same manner as a non-resident not found in the Philippines.

  10. Whether or not the extraterritorial service provisions of the Rules of Court apply.

  11. Whether or not the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be affirmed.

RULING:

  1. Once the authenticity of the foreign judgment is proved, the burden to repel it on grounds provided for in the Rules of Court is on the party challenging the foreign judgment. Thus, ASIAVEST was not required to present evidence supporting the validity of the judgment.

  2. Matters of remedy and procedure, such as the service of process, are governed by the law of the forum. In this case, the law of Hong Kong applies. HERAS argued that there was no valid service of summons on him according to Hong Kong laws, which was supported by the testimony of an expert witness.

  3. The Court did not directly address this issue in the partial digest section provided.

  4. The Court did not directly address this issue in the partial digest section provided.

  5. The Court did not directly address this issue in the partial digest section provided.

  6. The qualification of an expert witness on foreign law is not necessary for the court to consider his testimony as proof of said law. Sections 24 and 25, Rule 132 of the New Rules of Evidence provides that the record of public documents of a sovereign authority, tribunal, official body, or public officer may be proved by official publication or a copy attested by the officer having legal custody, accompanied by a certificate from a designated officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the country where the record is kept. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that other competent evidence can be presented to prove the existence of a foreign law, even if it does not strictly comply with the prescribed rule of practice.

  7. The testimony of an expert witness on foreign law is sufficient evidence to establish the existence of said law. The Supreme Court has recognized that an expert witness may be allowed to prove a foreign law. In previous cases, the Court has considered the testimony under oath of an attorney-at-law who quoted verbatim a section of a foreign law as sufficient evidence. The Court has also upheld the consideration of the law of a foreign country as proved by a respondent's witness who cited the specific provisions of said law. However, in the absence of proof of the specific foreign law on a particular issue, the presumption of identity or similarity shall come into play, presuming that the foreign law on the matter is similar to the Philippine law.

  8. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the defendant cannot be considered a resident of the Philippines because he had escaped to his country and was an absentee. Therefore, he should have been summoned in the same manner as one who does not reside and is not found in the Philippines. Similarly, the defendant who was also an absentee should have been served with summons in the same manner as a non-resident not found in Hong Kong. The extraterritorial service provisions of the Rules of Court will not apply because the suit against him was in personam. The Supreme Court also noted that even if the defendant is considered a resident of Hong Kong, he left Hong Kong not only temporarily but for good.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A foreign judgment against a person is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties, and the burden is on the party challenging the foreign judgment to repel it on prescribed grounds.

  • Matters of remedy and procedure are governed by the law of the forum or place where the action is instituted.

  • Once the authenticity of a foreign judgment is proved, it is presumed to be valid and binding in the country from which it comes until the contrary is shown.

  • The record of public documents of a foreign country may be proved by official publication or a copy attested by the officer having legal custody, accompanied by a certificate from a designated officer in the foreign service of the Philippines.

  • Other competent evidence can be presented to prove the existence of a foreign law, even if it does not strictly comply with the prescribed rule of practice.

  • Testimony of an expert witness on foreign law is allowed and may be considered as sufficient evidence to establish the existence of said law.

  • In the absence of proof of the specific foreign law on a particular issue, the presumption of identity or similarity shall be applied, presuming that the foreign law on the matter is similar to the Philippine law.

  • In a proceeding in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court to acquire jurisdiction. For non-resident defendants, summons must be served upon them for due process requirements. (Jurisdiction in personam)

  • In a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over the res. Summons must still be served on the defendant to satisfy due process requirements. (Jurisdiction quasi in rem)

  • In a proceeding in personam, personal service of summons within the state where the judgment is rendered is required to establish jurisdiction over non-resident defendants. (Jurisdiction in personam)

  • In a proceeding quasi in rem, service of summons may be made outside the country on a non-resident defendant in certain situations, such as when the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff, relates to property in the country, seeks exclusion of the defendant from any interest in the property, or when the defendant's property has been attached in the country. (Jurisdiction quasi in rem)

  • The manner of summoning a defendant depends on their residency status and their presence in the country.

  • If a defendant is an absentee, they should be summoned in the same manner as a non-resident not found in the country.

  • Extraterritorial service provisions of the Rules of Court do not apply to suits in personam against absent defendants.

  • If a resident defendant is temporarily absent from the country, extraterritorial service may be allowed. However, if they left the country permanently, the provisions do not apply.